The plague of sequals

[muse108dc]

Why are almost all the games I see these days always have a number at the end, Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, Halo 3, StarCraft 2, GTA 4, I could go on and on but is it really that hard for devs to come up with a fresh idea or 2. Theres also the fact that all games now are made for trilogies, Mass Effect, Crysis, Halo, etc... Even then Mass Effect was almost KotOR 3 (just missing the lightsabers) and Supreme Commander was TA's spiritural successor (this isnt a bad thing).

Now Demigod is looking good as something else I cant think of right now so it is possible. It just feels like its all the same old ideas just being rehashed and made prettier. Am I wrong?

[DarKStar]

Well franchises bring in good money and it works - BUT sequel doesn't mean prettier - some sequels are really bad - take the last Myst for example it sucked really bad IMO especially the ending compared with others.......So if developrs keep on doing this, it means it works and people like it.

Looking forward to Prey 2 ... Oh and BTW, Call Of Duty 6 is confirmed for 2009! :)

[Jon_di2]

There are new ideas, your just not listing them because they arn't selling as well... they don't sell well because they did not put as much money into their development. Why create a new idea when you know that sequals will sell better? The same thing goes for movies.

Also think of it this way, when you play a game and get involved in the storyline, don't you want a sequal? I do, a lot of games end with you wanting for the storyline to continue...

ps. if those are the only games you see... look harder.

[muse108dc]

The rule with movies use to be the sequals always sucked, still true to a degree.

Yeah franchies make money but after 2-3 they end up pushing it for anything new from the story line and gameplay, IF they are anybetter than the first to begin with.

I'd just like to see some new unfranchise games every once in a while


And Call Of Duty 5 hasnt even been released, arent they jumping the gun a little?

EDIT: Well the big companies arent putting in the money to the new stuff, its the little ones with small budgets, I could list them but most of them arent worth listing.

Edit 2: Do you really want me to list every game I can? I dont have the time or will to do that.

[DarKStar]

Originally Posted by muse108dc

Yeah franchies make money but after 2-3 they end up pushing it for anything new from the story line and gameplay, IF they are anybetter than the first to begin with.

Well Myst was a major hit - it's a franchise that made good money - Leisure Suit Larry :), Prine of Persia, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, Rainbow Six, to name a few.......

And Call Of Duty 5 hasnt even been released, arent they jumping the gun a little?

Call Of Duty 5 will be released soon this year - Call Of Duty 6 is confirmed for a 2009 release - This is one franchise that is getting better and they will switch back to the formula that works, events that occured in history as opposed to fictional wars !

EDIT: Well the big companies arent putting in the money to the new stuff, its the little ones with small budgets, I could list them but most of them arent worth listing.

New games from scratch would take longer to develop and cost more money, indeed. Companies now want to rush products as fast as possible due to competition, so it's easier for a developer to work on a foundation and one that sells than start from scratch - In fact, what some people don't know is that during development, they plan sequels ahead of time and they often work on them either at the same time or shortly after release.

[TwystedMonkey]

To a degree I agree with you. Some stories are played out and don't need a continuation whereas some other would alot demand it. Its hit and miss. And its also specific to your own opinion on which property it being continued. I personally have been waiting for Diablo 3 for a long time when I know alot of other didn't even think there should have been a Diablo 2. My particular pet peeve is Halo. I didn't enjoy the first one at all and I didn't go near the second one. I fully expected to hear at the ending of the third one that he would take off his mask it would be George W underneath saying "mission accomplished!" Even though I have never played the first 2 fallout's (gets ready for a lynch-mob....) I am really looking forward to the third one. Then of course there are the times when a story needing finished or anything doesn't matter at all and its all about gang-beating a dead horse for the millions they think reside somewhere in its decaying inner cavities... Whew. Reminds me of an older penny-arcade strip that really seems appropriate for this thread. And a picky little point its "Sequels"
Penny Arcade! - The (Product) Cycle
heh

[Mibs]

Call of Duty 6 haha that just sounds so ridiculous. The call of duty franchise is one however that has been doing it right with the sequels.

[muse108dc]

I agree that some games need a sequel or two, they just all dont. The habit of devs just putting in a cliffhanger at the end is becoming cliche, if you insist on making sequels at least make it so each game can be played by itself and not need the 100 next ones just to find out what happens, the thing I hated most about Crysis was that.

I fully understand that sequels are easier to make, cheaper and faster but really I think a lot of people would appreciate a few new ideas every once in a while.

And personally, WWII has been so overworked so I'm not looking forward to COD5 returning to the old formula, 4 was good but it wasnt WWII.

And are you really telling me the Tomb Raider games were good? You are joking right?

[DK2]

I picked up Sins of a Solar Empire last week, wow, can't wait for part 2.
SupCom move over, true epic game play is here.....

[llama_egg]

Sequels aren't always a bad thing, hell, I think god himself must have graced us with Fallout 3 (finally) and Starcraft 2. Also, most of the games you listen in your first post are amazing (Halo 3 was only decent, and even then only when playing with friends), but Fallout 3, Far Cry 2 both are suppose to be amazing (by account of people who actually managed to get their hands on them), Starcraft 2, well, it's blizzard, if they mess up, I guarantee that at least one of there buildings will be burnt to the ground. And as I am (once again) disipointed with the story of GTA4, the gameplay itself was quite entertaining with oodles of fixes over SA.

And are you really telling me the Tomb Raider games were good? You are joking right?

Depends what ones your talking about.

And personally, WWII has been so overworked so I'm not looking forward to COD5 returning to the old formula, 4 was good but it wasnt WWII.

While I agree that I want to see WWII games die out a bit, it does not mean that the game will be bad, bit stale maybe, but what era a game is set in does not set it's quality. The reason COD4 was good was because of the quality the team put into it.

Your just making it sound like sequals are always bad, which is possibly the most untrue (and possibly nieve) thing I've heard in a while now, I can list tons of games where I prefered the sequel to the original (ie. Diablo 2 > Diablo), as well as I can list games where originals are better then the sequal (Deus Ex > Deus Ex 2).